Rash Bihari Pal vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.2002 and order of conviction dated 9.9.2002 passed by Sri Surendra Nath Pandkey, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 178/2000/Sessions Case No. 258/2001 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has found the appellant, Rash Bihari Pal husband of the deceased, Rita Pal guilty u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 8 years, while by the said judgment he acquitted the other accused persons, namely, Triveni Pal, Paruli Dasi, Dasu Pal and Sadhan Pal.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no direct evidence against the appellant that he used to torture the victim girl and as such the conviction of the appellant u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and he should have been given benefit of doubt along with other accused persons whose cases were similar to that of other accused persons and as such the appellant should be given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the victim girl used to be tortured for non-fulfillment of the dowry and after putting the victim on fire the husband and his family members fled away from the house and the trial court rightly convicted the appellant, who is the prime accused since he demanded dowry.

After healing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given by P.W.6, Anil Kumar Chandra father of the victim girl stating therein that his daughter, Rita Pal aged about 20 years was married with the appellant, Rash Bihari Pal son of Tribeni Pal about three years ago and he had given Rs. 45,000/- in marriage along with gold ornaments and utensils. After marriage his daughter was living in her sasural. In the beginning they kept her properly, but after sometime the boy started demanding money and T.V. He stated that he had given dowry as per his capacity, but in spite of that they used to torture and used to ask her to give more money and T.V. The informant went to her sasural and asked them not to torture his daughter. It is further alleged that on 10.9.99 at about 12 P.M. in the afternoon, Nemai Paul and Uttam came to his house and informed him that his daughter is seriously ill. Then, he hired a taxi and went to his daughter''s sasural along with others and found her body was lying in the house alone, in a burnt condition and all the inmates fled away. Then, he made an inquiry and came to know that the appellant and his family members after burning his daughter, they fled away, due to non-fulfillment of dowry.

On the basis of the said fardbeyan the police registered a case u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet in the case. Since the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case committed the same to the court of sessions. Lastly the case was finally heard and disposed of by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge as stated above.

It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. P.W.1, Rampada Bhandary, P.W.2, Shabbir Sheikh, P.W.3, Rishi Kumar, P.W.4, Swadhin Chandra Pal, P.W.5, Judhistir Kumar, P.W.6, Anil Kumar Chandra, P.W.7, Surya Narayan Pal, P.W.8, Madan Chandra Pal and P.W.9, Dr. Ranjan Sinha, who proved the postmortem report.

It is important to note that P.W.1, Rampada Bhandary, P.W.7, Surya Narayan Pal and P.W.8, Madan Chandra Pal, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.2, Shabbir Sheikh is only a driver, who stated that on the date of occurrence his taxi was hired by the informant and he had also gone with them to the house of the sasural of the deceased and saw the dead body.

The prosecution case has been supported by the evidence of the informant (P.W.6) as well P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5.

The informant (P.W.6) has stated in court that about after two and half years of the marriage of her daughter she has also told him that her husband and in-laws are demanding T.V. and money as dowry and they are torturing her for the same. Whereupon, he went to her sasural and asked them after selling his house he had given dowry in the marriage and also he cannot do anything to fulfill their demand and asked them not to torture his daughter. He further stated that on 10.9.99 Uttam and Nemai informed him his daughter is seriously ill. Then, he immediately went there and saw the dead body of his was lying on the ground and nobody was present in the house and he lodged a case. In para 6 he has staed that the girl, Rital Pal just one and half months before her death she was saying that she is being tortured for dowry. In para 8 he also stated that his son-in-law, Rash Bihari Pal said that he wants money.

The other witness, namely, P.W.3, Rishi Kumar has also stated that after the marriage of Rita Pal went to her sasural and after six months her husband and in-laws started demanding money and T.V. and started torturing her. When he received information that Rita is ill. Then he had also gone to her sasural where he found the burnt dead body of Rita Pal. In para 6 of his cross-examination, he stated that just two months before her death he had met with the deceased. In para 13 he stated before Daroga that Rita Pal used to be tortured for dowry by her in-laws.

P.W.5, Judhistir Kumar also supported the prosecution case and stated that he went to the house of Rita Pal on getting information that she is seriously ill and found that in her sasural she was lying dead alone in a burnt condition and nobody was present there.

P.W.9, Dr. Ranjan Sinha, who examined the deceased and proved the post-mortem as Ext. 1 and stated that the body was about 90% burnt of surface area of body with peeling off skin and blisters. Hairs on scalp were parth burnt and signed. Smell of kerosene was present.

In the opinion of the doctor she died of extensive burn injuries within 58 hrs. of the postmortem.

From the evidences, I find that there is a clear case where the victim, Rita Pal was found dead in her sasural within 3 years of her marriage and it is surprising that her dead body was lying in the floor of her in-laws house and all the family members of the in-laws including husband-appellant had ran away from the house. It is settled principle of law that if a woman after marriage dies within 7 years of her marriage at her in laws'' house then u/s 113B of the Evidence Act: presumption will be that since there is evidence of demand of dowry and torture soon before her death the husband is the prime accused and the learned trial court rightly found the appellant-husband guilty since there is direct evidence that he was demanding dowry and torture was being continued upon the victim girl.

I find nothing to disagree with the finding of the conviction and sentence as given by the trial court. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

The appellant is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled. The learned trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest for serving out the sentence.